United States v. Foreman

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

April 20, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.RENATA FOREMAN

SUPPLEMENTAL RULING

SHELLY
D. DICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This
matter is before the Court on the Government's Motion
for Reconsideration[1]of the Court's previous order that
counsel in this matter, both for the Government and the
Defendant, shall pay a fine for the untimely filing of trial
exhibits in contravention of this Court's pre-trial
Notice to Counsel.[2] The Court set this matter for
hearing and heard argument from counsel on this matter. The
Court adopts the recitation of facts set forth by the Court
in that hearing and the oral reasons given for the denial of
the motion. The Court provides supplemental reasons for its
denial and clarifies its Ruling as follows.

Counsel
for the Government has the erroneous impression that the
Court has held them in criminal contempt pursuant to Rule
42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As stated
by the Court, the Court never used the word contempt in
sanctioning the attorneys in this matter and the Court did
not, and does not, intend to hold the attorneys in contempt,
criminal or civil.[3] The Court further clarifies that it did
not sanction the Government for the conduct at issue; rather,
the Court fined the individual attorneys for their violations
of the pre-trial deadlines set forth in this case which is
within the Court's discretion.[4] Specifically, counsel for
the Government failed to comply with the orders set forth in
the pre-trial Notice and violated Local Civil Rule 5.2 and
Local Criminal Rule 55(b).

A
district court has “inherent authority to impose
sanctions when a party disobeys a court
order.”[5] The Fifth Circuit holds that a finding of
bad faith is not required “if a district court
sanctions an attorney for violating one of the district
court's local rules.”[6] In this matter, the Court
clarifies its Ruling to note that counsel for the
Government were sanctioned based on their violation of the
Local Rules of Middle District of Louisiana and failure to
comply with the Court's pre-trial orders.[7]

In
Chilcutt v. U.S., [8] the Fifth Circuit reviewed a
district court's sanctioning of Government attorneys for
violations of discovery orders. Equally applicable here, the
Chilcutt court stated:

Congress has made it abundantly clear that it intends for
Government attorneys to be treated the same as private
attorneys. Amending 28 U.S.C. section 2412 in the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), Congress
determined that the Government should be held liable for
attorney's fees and expenses “to the same extent
that any other party would be liable under the common law or
under the terms of any statute which specifically provides
for such an award.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). The House
Committee on the Judiciary explained that the change in
section 2412, which took effect in October 1981, simply
“reflects the belief that, at a minimum, the United
States should be held to the same standards in litigating as
private parties.” HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, EQUAL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, H.REP. No. 96-1418. 96th Cong., 2d
Sess. 9 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4953, 4984,
4987, 4996.[9]

The
Chilcutt court also observed:

Attorneys are professionals. They are, in every respect,
officers of the court, and officers of the court must comply
with each court order when it is issued-not after two or
three warnings to do so and not after lesser sanctions are
imposed. “It [should be] universally understood that a
court's orders are not to be willfully ignored, and,
certainly, attorneys are presumed to know that refusal to
comply will subject them and their clients to
sanctions.” Batson, 765 F.2d at
515.[10]

Accordingly,
the Court supplements its reasons for the denial of the
Government's Motion for
Reconsideration.[11]

Finally,
Counsel for the Defendant paid the fine imposed.[12] Counsel
for the United States is hereby ordered to pay the fine
imposed by the Court [13] within ten (10) days of this
Order.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.